Prakash Babu v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **Bail Appl..No. 2454 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2930/2019 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,RANNI CRIME NO. 16/2018 OF SANNIDHANAM POLICE STATION , Pathanamthitta** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **PRAKASH BABU, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. KANNAN, POYAL HOUSE, NARIEPATTA, NADHAPURAM TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.S.M.PRASANTH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI682 031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SANNIDHANAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 713** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SAJJU.S, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ================== B.A.No. 2454 of 2019 ================== Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 2019 ## **O R D E R** This is an application filed under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. 2. The applicant herein is accused No.16 in Crime No. 16/2018 of Sannidhanam Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 144, 147, 188, 341, 308, 120(b) read with Sec. 149 of the I.P.C. 3. A 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the judgment dated 28.9.2018 of the celebrated case in _**Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.**_ , [2018 (4) KLT 373 (SC)= (2018) KHC 6760] has struck down Rule 5, Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 and declared that the restriction of the entry of Hindu women between the age group of 10 to 50 years, is in violation of their fundamental right to practise religion. 4. According to the prosecution, to attain their political objectives, the political party to whom the applicant owes allegiance, has taken a decision to obstruct the women in the above age group, B.A.2454/19 - : 3 :- who were thronging to Sabarimala to pay their respects to deity pursuant to the abovesaid declaration made by the Apex Court. It is the further case of the prosecution that large number of party workers and followers were allegedly deployed and they were planted in sensitive positions in and around the temple and in its vicinity to prevent the enforcement of the order of the Apex Court, by the State authorities and that they have allegedly taken law into their hands and had started threatening the manhandling the women and their family members. The District Magistrate/District Collector, Pathanamthitta, had issued orders under Sec.144 of the Cr.P.C. to quell the violence and prevents the assembly of hooligans and vigilantes, who have determined to disturb the tranquility of the temple. Against the said direction of the District Magistrate issued under Sec.144 of the Cr.P.C. at Nilakkal, Eluvankal and Sannidhanam, accused 13 to 16 had conspired together to commit violence at Sabarimala and as per the instructions and knowledge accused 1 to 12 and other identifiable persons among, a group of 150 persons in prosecution of their common object had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly knowing that all of them are members of such assembly with the intent to commit to riot on B.A.2454/19 - : 4 :- 6.11.2018 at 7 p.m. at Sannidhanam. That in that process, they had wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and the elder sister of her mother, named Lalitha. The further case of the prosecution is that thereafter, they had caught hold of the scalp hair of Lalitha and had outraged her modesty and on seeing it, the defacto complainant resisted them, at which time one among the accused had twice hit him causing injury on his lip and contusion on his nose. That while so, the accused persons hit on his chest and back of chest and the Police officials interfered in the matter and resisted them and that otherwise the death of the defacto complainant would have caused. It is on basis that the prosecution would state that all the accused persons have thus committed the abovesaid offences. 5. The petitioner (A-16) had surrendered before the Pamba Police Station on 28.3.2019 and thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody and after remand, he is now under judicial custody since then. It is pointed out before this Court that accused No.13 against whom identical allegations have been made, was arrested and remanded, has subsequently been granted regular bail by this Court as per as order dated 7.12.2018 rendered by this Court in B.A.No. 8252/2018 filed by him (accused No.13). B.A.2454/19 - : 5 :- 6. It is also common ground that accused 1 to 6, who were arrested and remanded, were subsequently released on regular bail. It is also not in dispute that accused Nos.14, 17, 18 and 19 have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court concerned. After hearing both sides, it has been apprised to this Court that the allegations raised as against accused Nos.13, 14, 17, 18 and 19, etc. are almost similar to that raised against the petitioner herein (A-16). It is further pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that he is a practising Advocate of Kozhikode Bar and that now he has filed nomination as a candidate of the Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP) for contesting in the Lok Sabha election from the Parliamentary constituency of Kozhikode. 7. Having regard to all the abovesaid aspects, this Court is inclined to order the release of the petitioner on regular bail. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order will also be subject to the following conditions: - _(a) The applicant shall report before the Investigating Officer concerned at any time between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m.on the second and fourth Saturdays for the first_ B.A.2454/19 - : 6 :- _four months and thereafter he shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed by that officer. However, since the petitioner is now contesting as a candidate for the Lok Sabha election, it is ordered that the abovesaid direction need to be complied with by the petitioner only after 23.4.2019, which is the day on which the Parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held._ - _(b) The petitioner shall not enter into Pathanamthitta District for a period of three months, except to report before the investigating officer in relation to the abovesaid crime or any other cases or for attending any courts in relation to this case or any other cases. If for any valid reasons, he requires to enter into Pathanamthitta district, then he shall secure prior permission from the investigating officer concerned or from the court having jurisdiction._ - _(c) The petitioner shall not intimidate, influence or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence._ - _(d) He shall not commit any similar offence while he is on bail._ - _(e) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the court below; or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within one week from 23.4.2019._ - _(f) The petitioner shall not travel abroad without the permission of the court having jurisdiction. Application for release of the passport or for permission to travel abroad could be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage._ In case of violation of any of the above said conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall stand hereby empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, of the bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. 8. Before parting with this case, this Court would refer to the observations made by my erudite and noble brother, V.Raja Vijayaraghavan,J., in the order dated 7.12.2018 in B.A.No. 8252/2018 filed by accused No.13 that it is rather unfortunate that the respondent individuals, such as the applicant therein, who holds high B.A.2454/19 - : 7 :- position in major political parties, resort to unconstitutional practices to achieve their political objectives. 9. The Apex Court as per the judgment dated 28.9.2018 in _**Indian Young Lawyers Association's case**_ supra had declared in no uncertain terms that the impugned restriction of entry of the Hindu women in the age group concerned, is in flagrant violation of their fundamental right to practise religion guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Certainly citizenry and civil society and those who are concerned with the polity, are certainly entitled to make their critiques of any judgments that may be passed by the court of law, including the Constitutional courts. However, the action of the taking law into one's own hand so as to obstruct the enforcement of the specific directions and orders of the court of law, more so particularly that of the Apex Court, cannot be countenanced and trends of this nature cause great concern to all those who have the welfare of the country in mind. This Court is reminded of the words of caution made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Sri.Justice Ranjan Gogoi in his Lordship's recent speech rendered on 26[th] November, 2018 in celebration of the anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of India, when it was observed that _“the adoption of_ B.A.2454/19 - : 8 :- _the Constitution is inextricably entwined” in our lives and it is in our best interest to pay attention to its advice and “if we do not, our hubris will result in sharp descent into chaos_ ”. With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application stands finally disposed of. sdk+ Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE**